UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #23

[marynnu]

Did Dr j report this ?

Sorry, report what?

 

[notsure]

Court officials are protecting the jury from outside interference. I specifically said that any informal conversations which took place did so after the trial had concluded. I never said that the court officials were passing on information about jury deliberations to the barristers while the trial was ongoing.

Nor did I say that they were “listening in” to jury discussions. Of course they aren’t sneaking about in corridors and holding a glass up to their ear and the door to hear what is being discussed. But it is unavoidable that they do overhear discussions from time to time, including when they go into the room, and the conversation is still going on. And that’s before you even mention the fact that the jury often has a whiteboard in the jury room on which they are writing their thoughts on pieces of evidence, which is in full view when the court official walks into the room.

Yes, court officials are, strictly speaking, not supposed to divulge anything they hear or see to other parties. But the reality is that informal conversations do take place after the trial is over. It is also not uncommon for the barristers to talk amongst themselves after a case has concluded. The criminal law, particularly at KC level, is a small world, and they all know each other and move in similar circles. They have post match chats from time to time.

I’m certain it’s no different to many other professions which include a duty of confidentiality (including the medical profession).

I’m not sure why you are seemingly deliberately misquoting me. If you are trying to start an argument, I’m not your guy , as I have no interest in squabbling online over such subject matter, so I will leave things there.

Good post, imo

 

[Dotta]

Good post, imo

Why to have rules then?

If nothing what the Jury say among themselves and overheard by Court workers should be passed to nobody.

Drinking ale and gossiping about Jury's deliberations seem ridiculous, like "old gossips in a market place" haha

Not to mention it is against the Law.

So strange

JMO

 

[notsure]

Why to have rules then?

If nothing what the Jury say among themselves and overheard by Court workers should be passed to nobody.

Drinking ale and gossiping about Jury's deliberations seem ridiculous, like "old gossips in a market place" haha

Not to mention it is against the Law.

JMO

Nobody's saying it's good. It's being realistic about how people operate.

 

[Dotta]

Dbm

 

[notsure]

I don't have to do anything.

No, of course not. I edited my post, btw. Does that make it better for you?

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Why to have rules then?

If nothing what the Jury say among themselves and overheard by Court workers should be passed to nobody.

Drinking ale and gossiping about Jury's deliberations seem ridiculous, like "old gossips in a market place" haha

Not to mention it is against the Law.

So strange

JMO

Many things are against the law but people still do them - hence the reason we are all on here discussing a murder trial.

 

[Dotta]

Many things are against the law but people still do them - hence the reason we are all on here discussing a murder trial.

Exactly!

There is this thing which is called
"Professional Ethics".

JMO

 

[Becky53]

Drinking ale and gossiping about Jury's deliberations seem ridiculous, like "old gossips in a market place" haha

Would that be the ”Fish Market” Dotta?

 

[Dotta]

Would that be the ”Fish Market” Dotta?

Cockles and mussels alive, alive, oh!

 

[katydid23]

I confused baby K’s case with baby H’s case, I apologise.

The baby I posted about specifically related to baby-H. Who, whilst recovered did require 20 mins of CPR following a cardiopulmonary arrest.

In relation to the allegations by Dr J, he claims she was in the room when baby K (not baby H) desaturated. LL denied that her and Dr J ever had a conversation surrounding that desaturation, or standing over the incubator doing nothing. And, instead states that she was changing a baby’s nappy and feeding them in a seperate room (one would expect her nurses notes to support that claim if accurate).

First of all, that^^^ new story is very hard to believe. She now claims she was in nursery two, feeding and changing nappies, while her co-workers were across the hall in nursery one, answering an EMERGENCY code to resuscitate a baby.

Knowing what we know about Nurse Letby and her amazing skills during a medical crisis, and her strong pull towards such incidents, are we to believe she stayed across the hall and continued changing nappies?

The debate, from what I can understand is that in relation to baby K and Dr J’s testimony - she apparently accepted the claim (i.e., that she was present) in an earlier police interview, and then later (last week) denied it

Playing devils advocate - I imagine with so many accusations involving babies identified using letters to respectfully maintain confidentiality- She could have been bombarded (I.e., cognitive overload), and made fast thinking quick responses, to avoid challenging all statements put to her; some may not be consistent with later reflections with greater clarity.

No, that is a good try at explaining her answers, but it didn't go down like that. She did not make quick, impulsive answers. She had her notes available and was not confused about which case was which case. Here is what we know about her police interview about baby K;
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...n-waiting-for-baby-to-self-correct-trial-told
Letby told detectives at Cheshire Police she only recalled Child K because she was a “tiny baby” and the Countess of Chester did not usually take babies of her gestation and weight.

She said she had no recollection of the tube slipping and agreed that designated nurse Joanne Williams would not have left Child K unless she was stable and her ET (endotracheal tube) was correctly positioned.

Mr Johnson said: “She stated she would have raised the alarm if Dr Jayaram had not walked in and if she had seen the saturations dropping or that the tube had slipped.

“Miss Letby thought it possible that she was waiting to see if (Child K) self-corrected. She explained that nurses don’t always intervene straightaway if levels were not ‘dangerously low’.”

I note Dr J was present also at baby K’s birth and collapse within hours. Do we know who fitted the ETT? - I read that, Dr J states he removed it to give rescue breaths. I think establishing that was ‘secure’ is very important. I recall Dr J also stated inaccurately to police that baby-K was sedated, so couldn’t have displaced the ETT. This was later evidenced ‘not to be the case’ - doctors make mistakes too of-course.

 

[katydid23]

I found this article an interesting read- In a review of 326 neonates with NG tubes - Excessive air was found in 37.7 %, whilst the NG tubes were malpositioned in almost 50%.

Nasogastric tube position and intragastric air collection in a neonatal intensive care population - PubMed

Nasogastric tubes were malpositioned in nearly half of cases, and substantial or excessive air was found in more than one-third of cases. The hypothesis-the better the position of the tube, the smaller the amount of gastric air-was not confirmed by the data. However, a significant relationship...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How many of those babies in the study collapsed and died with purplish rashes and blue raised veins?

 

[katydid23]

Specifically, Dr J and Dr G.
In relation to Dr Evans, I gather that he/she made conclusions based on the evidence at hand including, but not limited to the above doctors medical notes.
My rational being that, an argument to explain a baby’s collapse, can be both possible and rational, but that does not prove that is the cause (i.e., correlation does not prove causation).

This, is the biggest issue in my view in relation to this case, many of the medics propositions, could be explicated by alternative rational arguments. E.g., scientific research on the risk of AE d/t NG tubes, or mis-placement and/or movement of NG tubes.

ETA- I wouldn’t want to defend a potential baby k*****, equally, I wouldn’t want to stay silent if I felt I was witnessing potential social injustice.

Right, if we look at each individual case, brick by brick, we can come up with an alternative explanation, for each one.

And that would be reasonable if there were a couple of unexplained collapses. But we are looking at 22 separate incidents, each one on days that Nurse Letby was on duty.

What are the chances that so many healthy babies would suddenly and surprisingly collapse in such a short time?

We cannot just look at these individually and try to rationalise an alternative explanation , one by one. Doing so nullifies the big picture, which is where the real mystery lies.

Enquirer, does it make sense that there was a huge spike in mysterious collapses, involving three separate types of injuries---air embolisms, internal wounds and insulin poisonings? Various babies having various combinations of these kinds of injuries, sometimes back to back to back nights.

The collapses happened randomly and routinely, but never on Nurse Letby's week long vacations.

Either the defendant was responsible OR a group of co-workers and consultants and even parent's of victimised babies got together and framed her ?

 

[Bakers]

Sorry, report what?

Thar he walked in on her standing over a cot doing nothing?

 

[marynnu]

Thar he walked in on her standing over a cot doing nothing?

I see, sorry. I have no idea to be honest. The problem is, standing doing nothing is completely explicable. I get why he was uneasy, and he may well have been right, but it would sound meaningless unless you also expressed your reasons for being suspicious.

 

[Legal]

Thar he walked in on her standing over a cot doing nothing?

This incident happened in the early hours of 17 February 2016. He raised concerns after this incident.

From Chester Standard:

Mr Myers says there is no record anywhere of the suspicious behaviour noted.

Dr Jayaram says he did not anticipate being sat in a courtroom, years down the line, speaking to Mr Myers.

"If you feel someone is deliberately harming [children], you would do so, wouldn't you?"

Dr Jayaram said concerns had been raised before February 2016, and were raised again following this incident.

Mr Myers says Lucy Letby continued to work at the unit for a further four months.

EDITED TO ADD FROM BBC

Dr Jayaram told Manchester Crown Court his team notified the senior director of nursing in autumn 2015 but nothing was done.
He told the court the matter was raised again in February 2016 and the hospital's medical director was told at this point.
The consultants asked for a meeting but did not hear back for another three months, the court heard.

Recap: Lucy Letby trial, Tuesday, February 28

The trial of Lucy Letby, who denies murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit and attempting to murder 10 more,…

www.chesterstandard.co.uk

Doctors pressured not to make a fuss over Lucy Letby, trial told

A doctor tells jurors he wished he had bypassed hospital management and gone to the police.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Legal]

Reading through earlier testimony again, it's clear the senior doctors and consultants had concerns about the deaths and collapses from very early on, and discussed this with each other, held meetings, raised concerns. None of this came out of the blue.

It would be very coincidental if this was a conspiracy to hide hospital failings but there was also a poisoner on that very ward acting during that same time period (LL admitted that the insulin had to be deliberately administered).

It's also coincidental that she is the only one on shift for all the incidents, often found at the bedside just as the baby collapses.

It's also coincidental the babies usually collapse as soon as a parent or designated nurse leaves the room, never when they are there,

It's also coincidental that the person allegedly scapegoated had 257 handover sheets and other confidential information in her house.

It's also coincidental that the person allegedly scapegoated was found to have done extensive searches of the parents on social media.

It's also coincidental that when LL was moved from nights to days, the collapses moved from nights to days,

It's also coincidental that there were no collapses whenever she was on holiday.

etc.

 

[Tortoise]

Episode 35, The Gang of Four

www.mailplus.co.uk

The Trial of Lucy Letby: Episode 35, The Gang of Four​

In this episode Caroline and Liz explain what happened in court when the prosecution began questioning Lucy Letby for the first time.

In the above podcast -

"Mr Johnson pointed out that she’d searched for baby D’s mum’s full name on Facebook, three days after she died, and searched twice for the full name of her dad four months later, in October 2015. She insisted she had a good memory for names but said she didn’t know how she recalled those of baby D’s parents months later."

from live updates -
Recap: Lucy Letby trial, May 19 - cross-examination continues

"Mr Johnson says Facebook does not archive the name searches beyond a certain number, so every time Letby searched a name, it would be from memory. Letby accepts that."


The timeline shows LL's agreed potential time for seeing baby D's parents ever was for 25 mins during resuscitation.


Baby D was born on the afternoon of Sat 20th June. LL was not working that day or night.

Sun 21st June was Fathers' Day. LL worked the night shift, which was the night baby D died. Caroline Oakley was D's designated nurse and LL had two designated babies in the same nursery. Baby D's mum says LL was in the unit when she went down to see D at around 7pm, and LL was hovering around not giving them any privacy. LL's text to someone says she is just about to leave for her nightshift at 7.15pm, and her swipe data shows LL arrived on the unit at 7.26pm.

Morning of 22nd June -

1.30am - first collapse and recovery.
3am - second collapse and recovery. Because she had made good recovery both times the parents were not disturbed.
3.45am - 3rd and final collapse.
4am - the parents were woken up and told to go to the unit. Mum says LL was holding a phone to the doctor's ear. She's seen details of her arrest in the news and that's how she knows who she is.
4.25am - baby D was pronounced dead. Mother said she did not see LL again after D's death.
Parents were taken to the family room with D and LL did not go in there or prepare the memory box.


Where did she get the dad's full name from, 4 months later, when she wasn't even the designated nurse and didn't interact with the parents?

Number of LL's total Facebook searches by month -

2015
June - 113
July - 70
August - 175
September - 209
October - 173

 

[Legal]

Would parents full names be on the handover sheets or on any other documentation?

 

[Tortoise]

Would parents full names be on the handover sheets or on any other documentation?

I don't know the answer to that. Although, police didn't find a handover sheet for baby D in her house.

I'm wondering if she had additional notes of these incidents (dates, names etc) that weren't found, or she had disposed of.